Menu

Even the rabidly regressive ideologues at Marvel who have spent the last 3 years denouncing pissed-off fans rejecting their shoving of SJW values down everyone’s throats are admitting that they have a bottom-line problem:

People just aren’t drinking their Kool aid and buying the bullshit, more so nowadays when liberal dogmas are getting torn down around their ears everywhere. The emperor is naked and even the most rabid of SJW writers in Marvel’s lineup can’t deny it. It’s hard for anybody, much less the ever-increasing number of Red Pills to see output like the following as anything but ham-fisted SJW rubbish:

The only thing really accurate to real life about this picture is the constantly offended scowl of Miss Fempowered

Tone deaf lazy writing that assumes your readership see these concepts in the same negative light tends to be bad for your bottom line.

Subtle, that’s some high class prose making an eloquent argument for progressive dogma on gender right there

The writers probably didn’t realise that most people ending up rooting for their strawmen caricatures of non-progressives.

The is why any organisation with some semblance of common sense needs to be aware of the social justice snake oil salesmen offering to make some progressive deforms reforms around their business model. These people are ideologues, they are in the game to bend things to their twisted religion, not to help you.

Maybe there’s a reason why there appears to be a lack of copypasta progressive memes from the west among progressives here of late, things are getting so unhinged over there that even SJWs here are thinking twice about trying this out.

Sometimes stuff like this makes me hope that one of our local liberals actually tries pull this off, it’s certainly popcorn worthy material. I do happen to know some self-professed male feminists that might actually take this seriously, one can hope.

Another sponsor is TV production company Hoods Inc. Its co-founder Bratina Tay, 42, said: “We believe in equality and we do not believe in discrimination. We’re not imposing our beliefs on other people; it’s just what we believe in. If this helps to bring awareness to the public, we are happy to do so.”

Digital agency Xpointo Media contributed $5,000. Its managing director, Ms Kathy Teo, 45, said: “Diversity and inclusion are important values to our company. Broadcasting our commitment to these values is good for business.”

Shibboleths, a shorthand term for the commonly repeated terms, ideas and beliefs within a community, are a good way of sizing up the idealogical stances of people around you. You should be especially alert if you hear someone dropping them at a good rate. At the rate these common liberal shibboleths were being dropped in the quotes, one can get a good picture of the probable idealogical stances of these people beyond just putting money for Pink Dot.

The terms commonly tagged to liberal Shibboleths aren’t merely words, they are refined expressions of the ideology they come from and carry a lot of baggage. When a progressive uses terms like “equality”, “discrimination”, “awareness”,”diversity” or “inclusion”, they don’t mean it in a way that people commonly understand them, but rather the way that progressives do.

The trick is to convince everyone that it is the progressive definition of the term, with all it’s associated progressive ideological baggage, is the one that everyone should go by. If not subjected to Red Pill resistance, the redefinition of these terms to come under the regressive agenda is all but inevitable.

You see it everywhere in how terms like “racism” and “privilege” have been somewhat successfully subverted by regressives to the advantage of their ideologies. Language is a powerful tool and the one who controls the definition of words holds the power.

As Red Pill social insurgents who can see through the regressive liberal delusions, shibboleths are useful as it allows you to quickly sound off and size up the people you interact with and gain intel on what ideologies they subscribe to as well as the level of their commitment to cause.

A person dropping one or two shibboleths occasionally is probably just your run of the mill Blue Pill who has had exposure to liberal ideas in common media and has has a layperson’s understanding of it, and might even prove a good prospect for you to plant the seed of Red Pill doubt in them by gently cracking these ideas with them in casual conversation. The ones dropping multiple shibboleths repeatedly almost all the time are probably not casuals, and are people you certainly need to be careful around.

As always, be careful in letting your own shibboleths slip when talking to non-Red Pills. If possible, find new ways of presenting Red Pill ideas without resorting to cliches or terms that are in common use within the Manosphere.

This serves several purposes- it helps you to maintain cover as a social insurgent, it prevents people who have been programmed by mainstream bluepill thought from being triggered at the mere mention of Red Pill terms, and crucially, also allows you to approach your own ideas from new angles to find new memetic combinations to strike out in your insurgency against the regressive invasion.

Understanding shibboleths and using them to maximal effect for your Red-Pill insurgency to is a crucial skill. Master not just your own memes, but that of your enemy’s as well.

Wilful ignorance of proportion in feminist dogma is nothing that Red Pills don’t already know, but things like this are good to take note of now and then to realise that no matter what they say, if you have an XY chromosome they are not on your side.

Your problems are invisible to them, and worse they expect disproportionate attention to their issues even when it is clear that you take the lion’s share of the shit-sandwich.

Keep this in mind the next time your stronk fierce feminist friend attempts to beat everyone over the head with how women are the ultimate over 9000 oppressed class, and nuke her attempts to guilt trip everyone by calmly pointing out it’s quite apparent she is only seeing what she wants to see. Nuggets of truth like this are also good for gradually unplugging your blue pill friends.

For all the noise being made by feminists and SJWs about needing to pull off a “day without women” to teach everyone a punitive lesson for not giving women their self-proclaimed dues, most reasonable people who have a basic concept of how modern civillisation is run and maintained will know that the real problems start when people have a day without men.

Modern civillisation is built by men, maintained by men, and defended by men. The vital work that is required for keeping the power running, the water flowing, the food on the table, and the wolves far away are invisible, thankless, faceless jobs that the average snooty SJW and feminist in their ivory towers barely have any awareness about while they sip their hipster lattes and go on crusades against the very same working class of evil straight male that keep their arses comfortable.

The continued existence of comfortable modern civillisation is a male endeavour, an epic of many faceless, unappreciated men working dirty, difficult and dangerous jobs to keep things going. This has been the way it has been throughout history, and but for a few exceptions women have largely been always been along for the ride, reaping the benefits of male sacrifice while playing support.

This historical reality of course goes completely against the modern shibboleths of gender equality- men and women are equal in all respects, with women being more equal and superior whenever it is convenient to point out so. Modern progressiveness attempt to rewrite historical male achievements as the result of gendered oppression, that the unequal output of the genders was due to men oppressing women while reaping the benefits for themselves. The progressive claims that a new era is upon us, the matriarchy is around the corner.

But if you are a Red Pill social insurgent you know better of course. The achievements of modern civillisation are a birthright that came about from the results of the sacrifices of millions of men that went before them, a legacy that the modern progressive narrative attempts to erase in lieu for an ideological fantasy that tries to make men guilty for having achieved so much. The genders are not equal and barring extensive social engineering (which progressives are trying to do), this will highly unlikely to ever be the case.

Davidson Maene addresses the myth of gender equality quite comprehensively on quora, here it is reproduced in whole because you never know when the progressives agenda will attempt to censor brilliant answers like this:

If women are equal to men, why have men achieved so much more throughout history?

By Davidson Maene

Written Dec 12

Because men and women are not equal.

The statement is merely another politically correct assumption devoid of evidence made because it feels good, and allows the world to seem prettier and simpler than it is. Men and women are too different for any concept of equality, inferiority or superiority to make any objective sense.

Such is the case with gender differences in intelligence, for example. Did you know that almost all IQ tests are “sex normalized”? Meaning that while constructing an intelligence test researchers toss aside any section on which either gender significantly outperforms the other, assuming a priori that the sexes are equal in intelligence. Essentially, any time observable reality challenges their assumption, they choose to disbelieve reality. Not necessarily due to incompetence or dishonesty, questioning egalitarian creed is dangerous.

Any scholar labelled a heretic is pursued and punished with the zeal typical of those who have convinced themselves beyond reason of their stand behind infallible truths, on the right side of history. Most researchers are likely afraid of the phenomenon dubbed The Watsoning, after the abrupt end suffered by the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and Nobel prize recipient James Watson, for daring to question egalitarian dogma. If someone like him can be sacrified for wrong-think, is there anyone safe to speak his mind? Is the loss of credibility being suffered by academics and mainstream journalists cause for surprise?

“This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.”(Thomas Jefferson)

We now follow truth so long as she leads to our preferred dogma.

Alas, reality rarely conforms to dogma and the few remaining intelligence tests which are not “sex normalized” are no exception: in adulthood (given that boys mature slower than girls), men have an average IQ about 7 points higher, give or take 1-2 points. It is true that this difference vanishes once one controls for the positive correlation between height and intelligence within the same ethnic/racial group. But this approach does nothing to refute the existence of said difference and misses crucial biological facts such as men having larger brains on average (brain size being moderately correlated with intelligence), and other brain differences.

The dispersion effect still remains, meaning that men–relative to women–have a very uneven distribution; they cluster around the top and bottom of human intelligence with fewer men being just average. One interesting effect of this clustering is that males outnumber women the further high up one goes in intelligence: in the top 85% (IQ115+) there are 2 men per women and for genius level IQs (140+) 8 men per women.

If you feel the need to claim that IQ is not a good measure of intelligence, you should know that the statement is not only demonstrably false, but means almost nothing in practice, as I showed in the introduction to another answer. In the same answer, you can see that IQ (and by proxy intelligence) is the single best predictor in existence for a slew of positive life outcomes: virtually anything which you would dub an “achievement”, from financial, to artistic to scholastic and even human relationships. It is such an excellent predictor that it makes the effects of discrimination on pay gaps irrelevant.

The fact that there exists gender differences in IQ means that it is a literal impossibility for men and women to achieve any semblance of equality in those outcomes–given free and open competition–especially at the highest levels; ergo men have always and will always dominate the highest levels of human accomplishments.

Unless one is willing to engage in eugenics or genetics engineering.

Research on the genetic heritability of intelligence has consistently shown that the effects of parenting on intelligence are nil or nonexistent into adulthood. Intelligence could be up to 85% heritable into late adulthood, with the remaining variation almost exclusively due to the unique environment of a child (e.g not shared with siblings) and other unknown factors.. Supposedly, those are things such as peer groups, in utero etc…The only studies which find otherwise do not account for shared genes between parents and children; assuming–a priori–that genes have little to no effect on how intelligent people turn out to be. You can use this to have some fun: challenge any naysayer to bring you a single study which finds that someone’s intelligence can be significantly changed by upbringing–while controlling for genetic heritability and the full development of late adulthood. Watch them stutter.

We then know that the gender differences in intelligence are not a product of the patriarchy, assuming that it is a shared environment between siblings.

There are ways to create the illusion of equality and even superiority. A notable one lies in the realm of American education where women now–supposedly–outperform men. In school, it is easy to explain away by the fact that boys mature slower, and because mass education must by default cater to the average, are at a disadvantage given that their uneven distribution in intelligences means that fewer are close to average. Whenever education caters to the highest intelligence, the ratio of men to women predictably gets skewed.

This is even true at the highest levels, such as between different medical specialties.

I don’t doubt that these two facts put boys at a disadvantage, but that they tell the whole story; they have not been enough–historically–to cause boys to fall so far behind. Note that women also enjoy all kinds of preferential treatments from the first day of school to the highest levels of education, and into their careers, further accentuating the disadvantage. Even when the result is that women now outnumber men in universities, preferential treatment in men’s favor is almost never introduced. In the minuscule number of cases where it is, maybe involuntarily as a form of protocol, there is no shortage of people being upset. A sweet hypocrisy among egalitarians: boys more successful than girls–>Introduce preferential treatment to be fair; girls more successful than boys–>what’s wrong with the boys?

Natural girl behavior and learning styles (easily focused, non confrontational etc…) have become “gold standard” in schooling; which probably means that boys are not well emotionally integrated into the new system, and acting like boys always have is the quickest way to get an “expert” to label one’s behavior diseased–without performing any medical tests–and enjoy a sedating dose of Meth, sorry, Adderall for ADHD; or be punished. Lastly, public teaching has become dominated by women. I once read about an interesting study which suggested that female teachers grade boys more harshly for the same performance as girls, being far less tolerant of their failings, unless the boy behaved as girls do.

But I digress. Do you know the first rule of gender equality? To desire gender equality, one must first lose the worries of an empty stomach.

Perhaps you will have noticed that gender equality is only ever the rage in wealthy countries, after life has either become easy or full of first world problems. It’s also the only place where it is fashionable to push the mysogynist statement that all men, everywhere, for all of human history, have subjugated, domineered and oppressed women into doing their bidding. I can never figure out how anyone convinces themselves that women are so weak and helpless that men can get together and manage to pass and maintain social rules which are actively unwanted by the other half of the human species–never mind that all little boys are raised by, and usually adore, their mothers.

How do you justify the claim that men are not utterly and completely superior to women if they can pull that off? If physical violence were enough to maintain such dominions, I know a lot of people who would be slaves today.

The misogynist statement, in all its glory, is just another manifestation of the arrogance of fortunate people—looking from their Ivory Towers—unable to fathom that anyone could desire something else out of life.

Truthfully, the historic and traditional model of gender relations is a crude and unsophisticated case of bartering. A man goes out into the difficult world, in times and places where work is too harsh (physically or intellectually) for most women to successfully engage in. He works himself to death, is possibly eaten by a saber-tooth and takes the extra risks necessary for the extreme “achievements” you speak of to make himself a more attractive mate; and gathers as much in the way of resources as he can for a woman who will, in exchange, give him “ownership” over something he lacks but wants desperately: her reproductive capacity.

It’s why rape was considered an offense against the husband, for example, and daughters the property of their fathers. It was understood that he had “paid” the wife for the kids by pledging to work and provide for her throughout his life-and as he likely dies sooner–after, on his inheritance or connections.

It’s interesting that the oppression narrative is so popular. Is there a single historical case where the old model of gender relations survived after life got easier and women made it clear that they were no longer interested? If men are so good at oppressing women, why do they fail so easily–as soon as most women say no–as they have all over the West? Have Western men somehow lost their natural bent towards violent female oppression? However did that happen?

Not to mention all the data suggesting that liberated American women have never been less happy, aggressive or medicated while Saudi women–in full oppression–report strange levels of happiness. In an interesting twist, while American women have historically reported more happiness than men, the situation has reversed: young Western males–completely outside the patriarchy–have never been happier too, it seems, with their video games, sports and uncommitted sexual adventurism: who is liberated now! I would forgive you for reaching the erroneous, yet funny, conclusion that the only people happy in a patriarchy are women.

These happy young lads are ripe for a rude awakening: their ever so delightful, liberated women, are unfortunately in danger of dying out. Look at birthrates across western nations: all heading fast below replacement levels, if they have not done so already. Liberated women spend their time pursuing educational, professional and sexual achievements.

When done, they often find that it is too late for any significant investments in motherhood, should they wish to.

It is interesting to note the dysgenic effect on the populations: the most intelligent women are having fewer children, if at all, meaning that the heritable components of intelligence—which make up the vast majority of the attribute—are making themselves scarcer each generation. It makes the recorded decreasing reaction times (highly correlated with intelligence) among European children scarier, doesn’t it[1]? True, a nation can survive for a long time with an ever aging population and bellow replacement levels; but we must all eventually go full Japan, or be demographically replaced.

This is true within countries and without. In the USA, without constant immigration, traditional conservative White women, with their much higher birthrate, would essentially out-breed feminists (and everyone else really) in due time–demographically dominating the nation and making women’s liberation–and leftism–an uphill battle. In Europe, liberated German women are under threat of being replaced by less liberated, beautiful Burka wearing ladies.

This is true of non-patriarchal men, too. Happy western boys are under threat of being demographically displaced by stern, handsome, bearded patriarchs. I would forgive you for getting the weird idea that after defeating the patriarchy at home, liberated women have decided to import handsome foreign patriarchs, in their support of third world immigration. Funny, yes, but untrue. What is true is that the sexy bearded strangers will never abandon their religion and accept feminism as the one true faith. If they out-breed the happy western lads, liberated European ladies, as minorities in their own nations, will be wearing burkas next–as many of them did so long ago following violent invasions from the East.

Last, but not least, the greatest instrument of illusory gender equality is the Welfare State. Women are by far the primary consumers of public “services” and “jobs” provided by the state. Most of the expense in healthcare, food, housing and education is consumed by women. “Liberation” is an interesting choice of words given the fact that when you break down taxation by gender you realize that, among other groups, the welfare state essentially serves the role of transferring wealth from men to women. The average woman in Australia–for example–consumes 150,000 more in taxes than she contributes over her lifetime.

The wealth transfer from men to women is accentuated in the progressive model of taxation by its heavy reliance on the highest earners who (due to the link between high IQ and income) are predictably, unavoidably and overwhelmingly males; essentially forcing these men to takes on some or all of the traditional roles of the husband, for many women they don’t know and who have never done anything good for them: providing food, shelter, child education, protection, old age security etc….

Funny, isn’t it? How long do you think it takes welfare states to collapse with an ever aging and declining population though? Don’t sweat it, Japan will answer the question soon enough. Not to mention that western lads may be happy, but they don’t work as hard as their fathers to produce the kind of extra wealth necessary to sustain a progressive welfare state. Why should they? They are no longer socially pressured to shoulder the burden of a family; a single man needs very little wealth to support and entertain himself. They play, sleep around with sexually liberated women, do sports and almost nothing to make themselves “husband material”, as the Wall Street Journal once noted; going from woman to woman, beefing up their sex stats as much as possible without the pesky expectation of commitment which other men fall victim to. It is fun. And they are happier than they’ve ever been oppressing women.

“Where have all the ‘good’ men gone?” has become a rather common complaint though. Of course, one of the many things we must always assume despite a total and absolute lack of evidence—aside from gender equality— is that the “good” women are still here.

The poor chap here failed his girlfriend’s initial test when he dutifully took her words literally and showed up empty handed (an Alpha can do the same, and convince the girl that’s what she wants), he failed bigger when he decided to disgrace himself by going full on supplicating beta by begging for forgiveness on his knees.

Now he has all but secured an impression of irrevocable betahood in the mind of his woman, who now has nothing but contempt for him. She will be unable to see him as a masculine man and the relationship, if it somehow continues after all this press attention will always be fraught with much tension, stress and personal degradition on the side of the beta. While his unappreciative GF slows whittles away what little masculinity he has left after this episode.

Remember that more often than not trying to win back a girl by supplicating after you failed a shit test only makes things worse.

Yes sometimes you fuck up, but draw a line in the sand in how far you are willing to leave the masculine frame to apologise. Remember that you may be called an asshole but you will have her interest and respect. Going full beta to apologise often ends up having the cure being worse than the ailment.

It has been a few years since Sangeetha started her Chinese Privilege gig, creating a meme that has managed to make significant headway into the ideological space of the English-educated and speaking crowd in Singapore.

While Sangeetha apparently hasn’t been able to make much money off her original subscription model of SJWism for her Singaporean Chinese Privilege blog, which apparently had only two subscribers after an extended run, she has moved out into farming Chinese Privilege by hawking it in educational institutions as well as shaking down guilty Chinese Allies for money or bashing whatever non-Southern Indian group that has earned her ire. The demands for money, resources and power can get quite comedic at times, and they make for good popcorn time material.

Whatever you may think of Sangeetha and her histrionics, you cannot deny that she has managed to create something that is expected to be around for quite a while which will be an issue that every Red Pill social insurgent will eventually have to tackle.

There are excellent takedowns of Sangeetha’s Chinese Privilege out there, and they provide deep analysis and deconstruction, showing why as a social theory to describe and approach race relations in Singapore it is not only highly suspect, but also dangerous for the social fabric of Singapore. These are works you should verse yourself in to better understand the issue.

But while I do think these works are great takedowns of Sangeetha’s Chinese Privilege, I do feel they lack something fundamental that has limited that effectiveness in changing opinions on the matter.

They are logical.

Yep that’s the problem, they are too logical.

The Chinese Privilege gig sells well to the progressive leftist crowd in Singapore not because it is a well-constructed thesis but because it is designed to push as many emotional buttons as possible among minorities and English-speaking Chinese Progressives in Singapore. As a work of manipulating emotions and recruiting minorities and liberals it has proven to be quite useful.

Logical takedowns of Sangeetha miss the manipulative nature of her ideology out entirely to focus on the rational merit of argument she is making, forgetting that Chinese Privilege sells not based on logic, but by provoking emotion.

While Sangeetha’s Chinese Privilege may take the appearance of an academic exercise, it is just that, a facade.

Remember the whole Chinese Privilege meme is not meant to be logically consistent, but just appear plausibly enough so in order to stoke minority anger.

To understand how to best combat the damaging effects of Sangeetha’s Chinese Privilege narrative on the social fabric of Singapore one needs to understand that nature of how it persuades, provokes and spreads its influence. Logical takedowns generally neglect this, and end up serving merely as textbook answers that lack persuasive power.

So with that, Talon shall look at the foundations of Sangeetha’s Chinese Privilege memes in terms of how it is structured to persuade and manipulate.

Chinese Privilege has proven to be quite effective in manipulating people because it works on multiple levels. Let’s look at them now:

1) Manipulating Emotions- Casual Irritations as Systemic Racism

Understanding the meme of Chinese Privilege as one that generally spreads via an appeal to emotion becomes useful when you look beyond the academic writings that Sangeetha puts out to examine the secondary material in her inflammatory anti-Chinese hysterics on social media. These serve as an informal “real-world” expression of her ideology.

While these hysterics serve an to stoke emotions among her social circle in support of her social theories, and also provide us social insurgents some insight into her psyche, it is important to note that the “academic” side of Chinese Privilege gives justifications for Sangeetha acting in ways that could be quite reasonably considered racist.

For the people who have been harbouring large grudges against the Chinese majority in Singapore for various reasons, an academic justification allowing them to act out in is incredibly attractive. This is why a fair bit of people are willing to ignore the inconsistencies and sheer fabrications of fact even when they are glaringly obvious.

Sangeetha has managed to successfully up-sell latent casual racism in Singapore as systemic, exaggerating the actions of an insensitive minority of the Chinese as an institutional issue. On top of that, she has also redefined any inconvenience that minorities often face by virtue of being different from the rest as an issue of overt racism and discrimination, as opposed to finding alternative plausible explanations for that.

Remember under Chinese Privilege, any bad feels from the minority in regards to the majority is a result of Chinese racism.

Now casual racism is latent in all populations due to individual dispositions. This is unfortunate but it is another thing to claim it’s a systemic issue (ie. The system is actively out to get you.)

It is simple math in action. Even if all the races in Singapore had similar levels of casual racism, a member of the minority is simply way more likely to run into an idiot from the majority by virtue of the sheer numbers of them around. This does not mean that the majority as a group is out to get you, but that you are more likely to run into an idiot from it.

Sangeetha spins this statistical reality and distorts it to convince minorities that the Chinese as a class (if they aren’t self-identified allies on her bandwagon) are out to get them, and it works because most people can’t understand proportional representation.

To top this off, Sangeetha moves to reframe things that are due to simple demographic math in play as an example of deliberate systemic discrimination. The economies of scale that the Chinese can employ by virtue of being more numerous, such as being able to use Mandarin as a lingua franca for non-English speakers in employment are now redefined as racism. Advertisements targeted at the biggest demographic market is sold as discrimination against minorities (because targeted marketing ignoring is racist). So on so forth.

All unfortunate minor irritations (microaggressions) that minorities face are reframed as an example of a massive Chinese hegemonic conspiracy to disenfranchise minorities under the meme of Chinese Privilege.

It does not matter that there are alternative explanations that are more inane and don’t need to bring up accusations of racism, why? Because these explanations do not provide emotional relief in giving a bogeyman to bash.

A great part of the manipulative power Sangeetha’s Chinese Privilege meme comes from the ability to continually redefine all minor irritations that minorities face as racism. While such “everything annoying is racism” sentiments are not new Sangeetha has managed to present an easily understood, applicable and seemingly academic method of codifying and concentrating such feelings under the banner of “Chinese Privilege”.

Know that the logic often does not matter, what matters is the emotional payoff an aggrieved person can get from putting a “Chinese Privilege!” stamp on anything about the Chinese that causes unhappy feelings.

2) Appealing to Rabbit Psychology

Sangeetha’s Chinese Privilege is also structured to appeal specifically the psychologies of the Rabbit people. If you don’t know what Rabbit means you can refer to the post with the grand summary on Wolves and Rabbits.

The core of Rabbit psychology is anti-competitive, seeking to eliminate all inequality of outcomes no matter the reason. Rabbits value models are also intrinsic, deeply focused on inherent rights, identities and status entitlements without the corresponding extrinsic justifications for such.

As such, claims that Singaporean Chinese are stealing resources and status from that should be rightfully accorded to minorities in Sangeetha’s Chinese Privilege meme are deeply convincing to the Rabbit people that tend to populate the progressive demographic in Singapore.

Not that it does not matter if one can point out other more plausible reasons why there are different outcomes between the Chinese majority and the rest, Rabbit people are cognitively predisposed towards believing the narrative of a hegemonic racist Chinese conspiracy to oppress the rest because that is the quickest way to make the loudest noise and greatest push for resource redistribution.

In short, the radical claims of Sangeetha are specifically designed to best provoke Rabbit instincts among local progressives. This provocation is powerful enough progressives are compelled to move along with it, with the less-rabbity of those who attempt be the moderate voices largely ignored or even attacked outright.

Sangeetha has also hedged her bets well by setting up a local version of the progressive stack and making a hard sell for it in the opening arguments for her Chinese Privilege gig several years back, conveniently placing herself, an overweight, dark-skinned southern Indian woman sorely at the bottom of the stack in order to claim the right as progressive moral arbiter over everyone else. This has allowed her relatively free reign to control and redefine a great deal of discourse on race in progressive circles although there is some indication that she might be overreaching of late and alienating segments of her ilk higher up her stack.

To sum it up, Chinese Privilege has been rather convincing to anyone of a progressive disposition due to it being able to appeal well to various aspects of Rabbit psychology. This has allowed Chinese Privilege as a meme to entrench itself deeply within liberal circles in Singapore, of which uprooting it will probably require monumental effort from moderates.

Interestingly, the specific construction of Sangeetha’s Chinese Privilege in order to appeal to Rabbit people can be seen via the contrast of reactions in minority individuals who have more Wolf dispositions- they tend to be less welcoming of Sangeetha’s assertions, and sometimes even outrightly hostile. The Wolf people rightfully reject all this race-baiting as nonsense, even when it promises them a moral high horse.

3) Memetic Hijack of Western Progressive Memes

On a technical level there is nothing terribly original about Sangeetha’s Chinese Privilege- it’s original presentation was chunks of writings on White Privilege by Western Progressives taken wholesale with the racial terms swapped to turn White to Chinese, completely ignoring the differing cultural and historical contexts that exist.

Criticisms of Chinese Privilege as being plagiarised and shoehorned to fit a local perspective miss the point. Sangeetha doesn’t need Chinese Privilege to be original or even appropriate for application here as a cultural theory- all she needs is something that will catch the attention of local liberals already using all the buzzwords and rhetoric they are familiar with.

This outright appropriation of White Privilege serves several purposes: being a cookie-cutter term-swapped social theory Chinese Privilege can piggyback on established memes within the headspace of local progressives already set up by the White Privilege narrative, giving the same feel of authenticity and credibility White Privilege already has.

This is why the output of local progressives on Chinese and White privilege often appear indistinguishable, in their heads it is literally the same meme, just with different skin colours.

The power of this transposing effect was so much that several minorities I observed who drank Sangeetha’s cool aid started equating their situation in Singapore as equivalent to that of African Americans!

Far from being a weakness, the shameless plagiarisation of White Privilege in Chinese a Privilege is a rhetoric strength, a memetic hijack that has paid dividends for local race-baiters.

Remember, an argument does not need to be valid to be convincing, it can take on the guise of other accepted arguments in an act of rhetorical mimicry to slip in and set root.

4) Meeting Regressive Idealogical Demand

One also needs to examine and understand local idealogical market forces to understand how Chinese Privilege has obtained it’s manipulative power.

For a long time liberalism in Singapore has been largely tied to opposition politics with parties such as the SDP being the flag bearer for the further left of the spectrum. While civil society did exist and was ideologically leftist and probably more so, the bulk of minds in the populace on the left was occupied by local opposition politics.

Then came the the stunning opposition victories of 2011 which built up support for opposition politics to a frothing fever pitch (as a matter of fact opposition supporters often behaved in a manner similar to SJWs), with local liberals confident that GE 2015 would be another stunning success.

Then came the crushing defeats they routed and discredited the opposition as the ground swung to the PAP in 2015, a trend that has not let up in a series of losing streaks and misfortunes for local political parties.

This was however a boon for local Progressives as there was now a power vacuum in local leftism since the collapse of the political opposition. Where your idealistic young uni undergrads may once have seen opposition political activism in the years of 2011-2015 as an outlet to their inflated-self perception of revolutionary righteousness, the post 2015 environment only has SJWism for them to sign up for.

This has consequently led to a swell in the ranks of progressives in Singapore. This sets up a buyers market for any progressive idea that can be successfully localised- after all it’s more payoff to SJWing on stuff here as opposed to posting about social issues in America.

This demand for local progressive memes is a natural market for Sangeetha’s Chinese Privilege narrative and its various permutations. While basically repurposed White Privilege, Sangeetha has managed to hawk a meme that appears localised enough for local regressive to latch onto and propagate.

Conclusion and Initial Insurgent Strategy

Chinese Privilege as a meme has proven to be effective in infiltrating and entrenching itself in the idealogical landscape of Singapore. While currently generally restricted to the English-educated and speaking liberal demographic one expects that barring the takeover of another more attractive progressive ideology it is expected to progress.

Chinese Privilege as a meme finds it’s success and appeal not because it is a valid work of academic social commentary, by manipulating several key centers of gravity in the idealogical battlefield to becoming rather convincing, they are:

1) Manipulating the emotions of aggrieved minorities by providing a plausible and codified belief system to concentrate, amplify and direct the negativity.

2) Manipulating the Rabbit psychology of liberals by structuring the rhetoric within Chinese Privilege to trigger instinctive Rabbit anti-competitiveness and aversion to differential outcomes, biasing such individuals towards be ideology.

3) Appropriating accepted memes such as White Privilege to take advantage of meme hijack in order to expedite acceptance of Chinese Privilege in the headspace of Progressives.

4) Meeting pent-up market demand for localised ideologies among local Progressives looking for a justification to conduct local activism.

These 4 main factors are why Chinese Privilege by Sangeetha as been relatively successful as a local progressive meme, which is at this point largely self-sustaining without much action on its originator.

Many traditional attempts to address Chinese Privilege are conducted on logical validity of the ideas themselves instead of understanding these 4 factors, and hence they fall short of even starting to dent it’s memetic appeal.

Red Pill social insurgents operating outside traditional paradigms of discourse need to realise that Chinese Privilege as a meme can only be defeated if these 4 centers of gravity are addressed. Fortunately as Red Pills, you are in possession of powerful knowledge that allows you to do just that. Talon will be addressing those in other posts on the matter.

You need to realise that the ultimate endgame of Chinese Privilege is not the elimination of racism from Singaporean society but rather the amplification of fault lines within the social fabric of Singapore. As a meme that finds its sustenance for existence by finding and defining racism in everything it will never stop until it’s acolytes are completely offended by everything, no matter how innocuous, with the races further from common ground as they have ever been.

We only need to look to America to see how badly this can turn out and mark my worlds that this is the outcome if the destructive meme of Chinese Privilege is allowed to run unchecked.

A common mistake I see Red Pill social insurgents new to the game make in online debate is that they tend to engage with infodumps containing Red Pill walls-of-texts to debunk Progressive lies.

Remember that it doesn’t matter how watertight your carefully-argued post is if it is so dense that nobody bothers to read through all of it. Remember that arguments online are rarely won by making your opponent concede through the sheer force of logic, facts and reason itself especially if you are dealing with Rabbit psychologies, which you most probably will be when engaging Progressives.

Rather remember that you are conducting this debate for an audience, and the trick is to present your arguments in such a way that it appeals to the neutral third-party audience reading all this. The debate is a platform on which you have an opportunity to present Red Pill truths to the wider world in the guise of competing with mainstream Progressive ideology. Wall-of-texts are a terrible way of doing this, especially if the exchange ends up being back and forth engagements consisting of such.

Know that wall-of-text debates only has an audience of two- you and your enemy and are often a waste of time and energy to engage in. The exception is if you are engaging with a person who is really interested in the truth and acting in good faith even if they disagree, at which case wall-of-texts may be worth it as an exercise of one-t0-one persuation and to hone your own arguments and thoughts.

Instead of the noob infodump tactic, remember that being effective in a debate with your enemy (idealogical opponent acting in bad faith) will involve being able to be linguistically devastating to both their arguments, ideas, egos and psyches in as little words as possible. Learn to keep your posts short and to the point, demonstrating full control of the situation with as little effort as possible.

Remember that less is often more. One devastatingly powerful realtalk smackdown given in just two lines utterly shattering your opponent is often better than a 10 paragraph point-by-point debunking. This works even better if your opponent is Wall-Of-Texting as the contrast between one party who just can’t shut up and another who knows how to smash his opponent in just a tweet makes you appear masterful.

So look through your opponent’s argument and find the fatal flaw, exploit that for a single powerful attack instead of trying to hit every nit-pick, losing focus and the audience’s attention in the process.

Remember to choose the right tools. Less is more; learn to destroy your ideological enemies in just a paragraph demonstrating Red Pill truths, confidence, and mastery. The audience will see the contrast and naturally gravitate towards the more charismatic side, even if they don’t say it. Bonus points if your SJW opponent helps by melting down. It’s going to take practice, and the sooner you start learning your basic Shitlording skills the better.

I’ve noticed an uptick of readers to this blog recently, especially on posts involving social commentary. Be you a new or regular visitor to this blog you might have realise I often use the terms “Wolf” and “Rabbit” when describing people. This might be confusing to new readers who are not aware of the basics of r/K Selection theory and how it has been used in many aspects of Manosphere thought to analyse social issues.

It is from r/K selection theory that we get the terms “Wolf” and “Rabbit”, which are archetypes used to describe the psychologies of individuals based on how they fall on the r/K spectrum. These terms are useful because their namesakes closely resemble the types of psychologies we see in r or K selected people.

Understanding r/K psychologies can provide you with a useful model to decipher the underlying instincts and motivations that drive human behaviour. Man is often an irrational creature that gives retroactive justifications to his actions to give them a veneer of rationality, more so if he has subscribed to reality-denying ideologies like Progressivism.

A common mistake many new social insurgents make when they first enter the ideological battlefield is that they attempt to achieve their aims by convincing neutrals and defeating enemies through the brute force approach of attempting to “logic” their way to victory. While Red Pill truths can be a powerful knife that cuts to the core of many Blue Pill psyches the brute force reasoning approach rarely works as the natural inclinations of people to avoid cognitive dissonance will cause them to deny reality even if it stares them in the face.

This is why you often can’t unplug many invested Betas just by hitting them with cold hard reason and truth, more often than not they will just double down because that feels better.

To be effective you need to truly understand their underlying subconscious instincts and motivations, making your influence felt there instead of just on the intellectual plane. This is why a good understanding of how the Rabbit and Wolf people tick is imperative for your success in the ideological battlefield.

So without ado, a short cheat sheet and some exposition on how things work regarding the psychology of the Wolf and Rabbit people:

The Grand Matrix of Wolf and Rabbit People

Attribute

Wolf

Rabbit

Attitude towards Competition

Competitive

Anti-Competitive

Resource Perspective

Resources viewed as limited- needs to be worked for and carefully managed

High- loyalty to in-group is seen as important, associations tend to be deliberate and formal

Low- trust and loyalty is not important to in-group, associations tend to be a matter of convenience

Response to Threats

Fight/Resist

Flee/Submit

Violence

Highly structured and ritualised with formal rules of combat

Unstructured, spontaneous mob violence with no rules of combat

Value System

Principle Based- making and breaking the rules structured on formal principals even if unpleasant

Emotion Based- rules are made and broken based on how good they make one feel

Favoured Environment

Harsh, Resource-restricted

Easy, Resource-abundant

Gender Model

Dimorphic- clear division of roles between the genders. Males tend to be more masculine and females feminine

Androgynous- males can be more feminised while females more masculine. Genders roles more interchanagable

There you have it, the main attributes and differences between the Wolf and Rabbit people summed up in one big table, you will probably start to realise that a good deal of your friends mainly fit into one archetype as you go down this table. You would also realise that your Progressive acquaintances tend to be hardcore Rabbit.

While nobody cleanly fits into either archetype fully- it’s a spectrum after all, understanding the key aspects of Wolf and Rabbit psychology will allow you to better deconstruct a lot of the leftist memes that are flooding the ideological battlefield. Understanding your enemy will also allow you to choose better approaches.

For example, if you realise that a people you are engaging are hardcore Rabbits, appealing to their sense of loyalty in order to make an argument is a very poor move as Rabbits have low in-group loyalty. Calling them as disloyal is unlikely to illicit much of a response as Rabbits do not really understand the concept of loyalty to the in-group and might even see it as a virtue to sell everyone out for personal gain.

A common mistake that people make when formulating rhetorical attacks is creating them based on what they personally fear instead of their enemy is actually afraid of. This is psychological projection and is a poor method of picking your linguistic kill-shots. I’ve also seen many Wolves who engaged Rabbits expecting a fair and honourable fight on the plains of logic only to get dogpiled and Doxxed because they didn’t understand Rabbit violence is unregulated and anarchic with no respect for the rules of war to limit damage to all parties involved. You need to understand your Rabbit opponent and know what makes them tick in order to safeguard yourself and be effective.

Being anti-competitive, the real fear that Rabbits face is the prospect of being trust back into a competitive environment where they have to compete with the Wolf people for resources. This fear underlies much of their rhetoric on why resources should always be redistributed regardless of merit and society be made as “equal” as possible. Hence, forcing through verbal guile to make a Rabbit conclude that they need to earn their keep is a good way to make them freak out and lose control.

Understanding that Rabbit morality is emotionally rather than rule based will also pay dividends in making sense of the various SJW ideologies that are churned out en masse by the Cultural Marxist machine. When you know that they are structured with the end goal of making sure there are no bad feels on the part of their holders, the various logical incongruences start to make sense because the ideology, despite having an appearance of being a logical argument, was never intended to be one in the first place.

Know that the a good way to attack these ideologies are by taking advantage of the emotional nature of Rabbit emotions to make them dismantle themselves. Very often you can mobilise one SJW ideology with greater emotional impact to demolish another one simply by setting one SJW to clash with another, the low-trust and unstructured nature of how Rabbits conduct violence will mean that it often ends up being a zero-sum game between the two. All this is way more effective than attacking the fortress of their ideas from the outside of the Rabbit warrens.

As always, knowledge is power and as a social insurgent you need to know the enemy and attack all their weak spots. Know your Wolf and Rabbit people well.

This is a story of a girl who thought she could have it all, she lived dangerously by her desires and didn’t care much about anything else, much less about other people when they got in the way of that. She is the epitome of YOLO, and she lived her life to the fullest.

And by “life” we mean her twenties.

I first knew her when were were in our early twenties during uni- naive impressionable young adults who thought the world was our oyster that was ours for the taking. I was my hapless beta Blue Pill self as most local Singaporean guys are at that age and she was well aware of social power that women held by virtue of their gender at that youthful age.

She is a person who was what people would describe as “100% transactional”. Every dealing with her was evaluated on how much gain it she could get from it and how much it personally conveniences/inconveniences her.

It could be said that she had princess syndrome except that this was a princess who was perfectly and cynically aware and calculative of the value inherent in every social exchange. Hence she wasn’t just your typical dumb fempowerment girl that was typical of most of your english-educated females in a humanities course in university at that time.

Looking back through my Red Pill lens I now realise that she had to be more calculative because she wasn’t as pretty as her peers and needed to be more aware of how she could leverage on her social power for maximum returns. But that’s another story.

Anyway she had a nice quiet beta boyfriend, a Chinese boy still doing NS that was absolutely devoted to her, spending great amount on gifts, expensive dinners and activities on her from his meagre NS allowance. She rarely mentioned him but it was obvious that he wasn’t exactly giving her the tingles, even if he was reliable and good.

And things were about to change real fast for them, because soon she would be offered better deals.

She took a short trip to Europe for exchange and came back a changed person, she was different- hungry, dissatisfied with what she had now and wanted more. Being the beta White Knight who was the safe and naive non-judgemental confidante of many girls in school back then she expressed her doubts about her current boyfriend to me.

There wasn’t anything wrong with him- he had been reliable and loyal to a fault. In fact that was his fault- he was too boring and reliable, completely devoted in his beta script of dutifully supporting his girlfriend through life with a self-sacrificial donation of time, energy and resources to her.

She told me that he was nice and safe- husband material that she might marry one day but that was the problem. She wanted someone who was more fun and games right now. I was confused of course, for such rationales conflicted with my Blue Pill Beta script of how being a nice and reliable guy should pay off. In any case she revealed the reason for the change in her priorities:

She had cheated on him.

Europe must have been an exciting time for her, free from the clean and safe conservative repression of Singapore. Of course it was much safer then as they didn’t have all their problems with refugees and immigrants at that time- it was a decade ago before the current crisis. She had gone out onto the streets and day and met a stranger, an European who promptly got her high on some recreational drugs and ended up banging the daylights out of her.

That experience with casual hookups must have left a lasting impression on her because she had now seen the light and could no longer be satisfied with nor could she respect Mr. Boring back home who was dutifully paying his dues and keeping his hands to himself so that he can finally have her on their (eventual) wedding night.

She told all this to me with a straight face, with no hint of guilt or shame at all. Her main concern at that point of time, having returned to Singapore, was how to get rid of her boring Chinese BF without looking like the party at fault since he had given her no cause to do so.

Like I said, she was 100% transactional. Her BF had run out of a value proposition and she saw more exciting prospects ahead. Hypergamy doesn’t care if you have invested all your Beta energies into a woman thinking that will win her loyalty. She dumped him and set off with a vengeance to claim the world ahead. It was her oyster and she knew how to get the pearl. School was over and now it was time to prove to everyone that she can have it all.

She became a fully-fledged SPG, dating caucasian men exclusively. As she wasn’t the prettiest asian woman around she found that the market most open to her tended to be the middle-edge, lower-tier unattractive caucasians who were fat or balding who could not find western women back home or were on the wrong side of a divorce and had headed to Asia to feel like a man again.

Nevertheless any Ang Moh is a status symbol for an SPG even if he wasn’t the hot ones that the prettier SPGs could pull, and it was also a good living as they were willing to subsidise her lifestyle. The freelance work as a writer was all she find on an English Lit degree turned out to be irregular income. What? Work a regular job as an office drone? That was beneath her- her post-uni twenties as a young adult was for having maximum fun, not for doing something as boring as preparing for being a functional adult and “settling down”.

She made a big point of telling everyone that in the first few years of that lifestyle, writing long polemics on the wonders of the liberated SPG lifestyle and constantly posting pictures of her travels to various parts of the world with her middle-aged Ang Moh boyfriends. It was a good time for her, and she was living it up.

But things started to change, it was probably a combination of a drying up of suitors as she started to get older and a growing desire towards something more “serious” in her relationships. She was probably also starting to feel the pressure of competition from younger SPGs entering the market who could offer more in exchange for lower drama and upkeep and realised she needed to lock down an LTR with a boyfriend stat. The market for SPGs can be a vicious one, even more vicious than the mainstream.

Unfortunately, her years of happy liberated living funded by Ang Moh money left her with very few skills that would have rendered her a good LTR prospect, much less the temperament and character required for stability. Her transactional nature and lack of loyalty were instant red flags for any Red Pill Ang Moh worth his salt, leaving her with the either the ones who were so beta she found them unattractive or the ones that knew how to keep her at arms length in a relationship and prevent it from progressing to something more serious.

In any case she tried to settle down by getting into an LTR with an Ang Moh who was probably the latter- he was ambivalent about the relationship and they broke up and got back together multiple times. For the first time, she found herself in the unfamiliar situation of being the one that needed to qualify herself to the other party in the relationship. It was clear he had options while she didn’t, the power was starting to shift.

And with that so did the amount of male investment in terms of cold hard cash. She tried to find a full time writing job but the years of wild living had not really helped her to build up a work ethic, neither was she self-aware enough to realise that her attitude needed an adjustment or that she needed more market-relevant skills. She found herself job hopping and eventually even fired from her jobs.

The dream of the free and swinging 20s was about to give way to cold hard reality. The fun and liberated travels of the SPG lifestyle with middle aged Ang Moh boyfriends was started to be replaced by needing to pay her own way and play catch-up with her peers, many of which were much further along in life and had built up real assets for the future. She was now in her late twenties and hurtling into the thirties with none of her shit together.

And her “LTR” Ang Moh could see it, he dumped her and left her to her own devices- plenty of other SPG fish in the sea anyway. She wrote about how the breakup was empowering but it was becoming clear to everyone that they were witnessing a train-wreck.

And the big 30 finally came and past and in true social-media attention fashion she posted a long eulogy to the wasted previous decade by talking about how she had “grown” from the experience of her wasted 20s and was becoming stronger for it. A few Blue-Pills chimed in to provide words of “you-go-girl” encouragement, but it was obvious that nobody desired that kind of outcome for themselves. The party is over and people are moving on to the next big thing.

Today she struggles to get by on her freelance writing jobs, posting articles on why her kind of living is “independent and empowered” while simultaneously bemoaning the general lack of Ang Moh interest in her. As she approaches 35, the bitterness and resentment is apparent.

Barring an extraordinary effort to change her own attitude and gain life skills that make her a good LTR prospect, it is highly unlikely she will ever find the kind of happiness she desires. It is much harder to repair damaged goods, and for many of these women the future is cats and unhappy spinsterhood while convincing themselves they are the best.

If she had been a man, making a declaration of awesomeness simply for existing after fucking up the past decade would have gotten her laughed at and dismissed as a shithead who needs to prove himself before declaring worth. But being a woman society loathes to make her feel bad for making bad life choices and she sails forward ignorantly on the winds of convention, not realising the true extent of how badly she needs to change.

At the end of the day, we have to pay the bill for our life choices. The irony of my SPG schoolmate is that despite being so transactional in character and always making choices that favour her interests, she lacked the foresight to realise that ultimately the long game is what matters, and to make the choices that would be in her best interests.